Quiz # B- Law 16 - On Campus Class - Relevancy Quiz
1. If there is a legal privilege,
relevant evidence may be excluded.
2.The Federal Rules of Evidence differentiate between relevancy and
3. Evidence is probative if it assists in the exploration for truth.
4. Evidence which may shed some
light on the issue in the trial is said to be immaterial.
5. A proponent of evidence seeks
to prohibit the use of the evidence at trial. Select one:
6. If evidence is very probative,
it may be admissible even though it is highly prejudicial.
7. If evidence is highly prejudicial,
it is inadmissible.
8. An adversary in a court case
is the opponent.
9.Under the common law, if the parties
stipulate facts into evidence, additional evidence covering the
same facts is immaterial.
10. The common law concept of materiality
has been merged into the definition of relevance found in the
Federal Rules of Evidence.
11. For evidence to be relevant,
it must tend to prove the "ultimate issue" in a case.
12. The predisposition under the
Federal Rules of Evidence is to accept rather than reject relevant
13. Probative evidence is never
14. In a case where the impoverished defendant Monty is accused of defrauding a wealthy woman named Buffy in an investment scam, defense wants to present evidence of Buffy's extravagant lifestyle. The defense claims this is relevant to help prove that Buffy didn't pay attention to poor Monty when he explained the risks of his venture to her, because she was too occupied with her jet-setting life. Plaintiff believes the defense wants to portray Buffy as wealthy so as to shift sympathy from her to the poor defendant. The argument under the Federal Rules of Evidence which could be made to exclude this evidence would most likely be
(a) The evidence is irrelevant.
(b) The evidence is immaterial.
(c) The evidence is highly prejudicial and only mildly probative.
(d) All of the above.
15. Nicole wrote Denise a letter indicating that she was afraid that her boyfriend was going to kill her. Several months later, Nicole was found dead. Prosecution wants to introduce the letter written by Nicole into evidence, for the limited purpose of showing the victim's state of mind prior to her death. This would get the letter past any hearsay or confrontation clause objection. On what basis could this evidence be excluded?
(a) The evidence is highly prejudicial
under FRE 403, relative to the limited probative value of information
regarding Nicole's state of mind several months prior to her death.
(b) The evidence is not relevant, since Nicole's state of mind does not tend to prove her boyfriend's committed the murder.
(c) The evidence is cumulative, in that it would unduly burden the court to have testimony with regard to the victim's state of mind.
(d) All of the above.
16. In the assault on a federal officer trial, the prosecution intends to call ten witnesses who will testify that they heard the defendant say words indicative of assaultive behavior. On the seventh witness, the defense attorney objects for the reason that the evidence is:
(a) Inadmissible because, although
is relevant, probative and not unfairly prejudicial, the testimony
(b) Inadmissible because the evidence is not relevant at all.
(c) Admissible because the judge has no discretion to prevent the prosecution from presenting witnesses.
(d) Admissible because the evidence is relevant.
17. Marie sued Donnie for unpaid royalties, and subpoenaed various documents in Donnie's possession regarding revenues he had received over the previous 3 years for their joint work. Donnie failed to produce the documents which were subpoenaed, but then tried to introduce those documents at trial. These documents are
(a) Inadmissible since they
are not probative.
(b) Inadmissible since Donnie failed to produce them when they were requested by Marie.
(c) Admissible since they are relevant.
(d) Admissible since they were requested by Marie prior to trial, indicating she stipulated to their admissibility.
18. The Federal Officer from question #8 is still testifying, and the prosecution asks what else the defendant said during the attack. The defense attorney objects on the grounds of unfair prejudice, because he knows that the defendant also said something very, very nasty about the officer's mother which had nothing to do with the attack. The judge should rule the evidence:
(a) Inadmissible because the
judge has no discretion to make the ruling.
(b) Inadmissible because the prosecutor really wants the evidence to make the jurors mad at the defendant.
(c) Admissible because the words are highly probative of the assault.
(d) Admissible, although prejudicial, the defendant did say the words during the attack.
19. Jim, a witness for the defense, had a fraud conviction 5 years ago. The defense would like to keep evidence of this conviction out of court. This evidence is
(a) Probably admissible, because
it is probative of Jim's part in the crime.
(b) Probably inadmissible, because it is highly prejudicial and not probative of the case.
(c) Probably inadmissible because it is not relevant.
(d) Admissible to impeach Jim's credibility, because it is a prior conviction of a crime involving dishonesty.
20. In a case where Richard is accused of assaulting Lear, the prosecution intends to call 5 witnesses to testify that they heard Richard threatening Lear the week before the assault. What is the problem, if any, with the admissibility of the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses?
(a) The testimony is not relevant
as to whether Richard actually assaulted Lear.
(b) The testimony is relevant but highly inflammatory and therefore
(c) The testimony is not probative, but will be admissible for a limited purpose.
(d) The testimony is needlessly cumulative, and excludable under FRE 403 as unduly burdensome on the court.
21. Winnie, in addition to requesting medical expenses, asked for damages for Puppy's pain and suffering. Rhonda still admits liability. Rhonda's attorney offers the testimony of the eyewitness who saw Rhonda burst into tears and immediately begin mouth to mouth resuscitation immediately following the squashing of Puppy. Winnie's attorney objects. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the trial judge should rule the evidence:
(a) Admissible as probative
and therefore relevant of Rhonda's intent to harm (or lack thereof)
(b) Admissible because the Federal Rules of Evidence abandoned the concept of materiality.
(c) Inadmissible because Rhonda's subsequent actions are not of consequence to the determination of the action.
(d) Inadmissible because Rhonda's subsequent actions show that she did not have any tendency to harm Puppy.
22. The prosecution, in a criminal case, has charged the defendant with assault on a Federal Officer. The officer testifies in the trial. The prosecution asks the officer whether the defendant said anything to the officer during the attack. The defense attorney objects because he knows that his client said very nasty words to the officer about cutting off a significant part of the officer's anatomy. The defense attorney, as a basis for the objection, states that the words the defendant spoke are irrelevant, but if relevant are unfairly prejudicial. The prosecution argues that the words are highly probative of the defendant's intent, i.e. his aggressive violent actions toward the office. The trial court should rule the evidence is:
(a) Inadmissible because the
words are so inflammatory, that the jury would be too upset unable
to reach a verdict.
(b) Inadmissible because the defense attorney said the magic words, "unfairly prejudicial." The judge therefore has no choice but to rule the evidence inadmissible.
(c) Admissible because the words have no relevance to the defendant's intent.
(d) Admissible because the words, although nasty and probably prejudicial, are probative of the defendant's intent.
23. Rhonda Roller-Blader bungled her blading experience by bumping into Winnie Walker's poodle, Puppy. Puppy, after lingering insufferably, did not survive the ordeal. Winnie sued Rhonda for wrongful death of Puppy. Winnie sought damages for Puppy's medical expenses. Rhonda admitted liability. Thus, the issue at trial is the amount of damages Rhonda must pay. Winnie's lawyer attempts to introduce evidence that Rhonda was ogling another blader. Rhonda's attorney objects. Under the common law rules of relevancy and materiality the evidence is:
(a) Admissible to prove Rhonda's
extent of negligence
(b) Admissible to prove the force with which Puppy was flattened.
(c) Inadmissible because Rhonda's ogling is not probative of the flattening force on Puppy.
(d) Inadmissible because Rhonda's ogling is immaterial and inflammatory.
- End of test. -